W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > August 2017

Re: [whatwg] rel=bookmark

From: Philipp Serafin <phil127@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 6 Aug 2017 03:13:02 -0700
Message-ID: <CAMaigVmY38mTxY3zMSjU63iEyGCZzw8Ee=cGRr0RmvdKmKC_rw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Kevin Marks <kevinmarks@gmail.com>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Ed Summers <ehs@pobox.com>
As the IETF usecase seems to be about permalinks, is there any requirement
for rel=canonical regarding validity in the future?

Am 06.08.2017 3:20 vorm. schrieb "Kevin Marks" <kevinmarks@gmail.com>:

> That use case sounds more like rel="canonical"
>
> On 6 Aug 2017 2:07 am, "Ed Summers" <ehs@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I was wondering if anyone can provide any information, or a pointer to
> > previous discussion, about why the bookmark link relation can't be used
> > with the <link> element [1].
> >
> > The topic has come up recently on the IETF link-relations discussion list
> > [2] where a new link relation has been proposed to encourage persistent
> > linking [3]. The proposed 'identifier' relation seems to closely resemble
> > the idea of a permalink (a persistent link) that can be found in the
> > definition of bookmark. If bookmark allowed use with the <link> element
> > then I think there would be less of a demonstrated need for the new
> > 'identifier' link relation.
> >
> > Thanks for any information you can provide. I apologize if I'm restarting
> > a conversation that has already happened.
> >
> > //Ed
> >
> > [1] https://www.w3.org/TR/html5/links.html#link-type-bookmark
> > [2] https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/link-relations/
> > current/msg00670.html
> > [3] https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-vandesompel-identifier/
>
Received on Sunday, 6 August 2017 10:13:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Sunday, 6 August 2017 10:13:30 UTC